Urban trees 'live fast, die young' compared to those in rural forests

Post by icebraining » Thu, May 09, 2019, 5:13 PM UTC

DuskStar wrote: post #69

icebraining wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moving to current cities may still be what's causing life expectancy to increase, even if moving to cities in the past didn't. Cities weren't held constant.

Of course! But I'd still guess that it's not some intrinsic property of cities, and that a large part of the difference would be explained by income differentials (or job differences - no chance of getting crushed by a tractor in Times Square).

Post by TrustAndSafety » Thu, May 09, 2019, 5:30 PM UTC

kaycebasques wrote: post #38

atulatul wrote: post #32

I highly recommend reading the book "The Hidden Life Of Trees" by Peter Wohlleben There is an informative chapter/section called Street Kids about trees planted along the streets primarily in urban areas. How their health is impacted by having no network of close cousins nearby to communicate/ suppy nutrients via root/fungi, etc. https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Life-Trees-Illustrated/dp/1771...

Came here to discuss the same section. It makes sense that urban trees die younger when you think about how heavily the odds are stacked against them: * No network of fellow of trees to share nutrients and information with via their roots, as mentioned above. * Dogs constantly pissing on the trunk. * Smog. * Planted in a small patch of dirt, surrounded by concrete. The dirt itself is usually extremely compacted so no…

Post by oasisbob » Thu, May 09, 2019, 5:44 PM UTC

atulatul wrote: post #61

sandworm101 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are also some advantages. Urban trees, being more spread out, sometimes have greater sunlight and therefore grow faster. For some trees age isn't the limiting factor but height. They grow until they risk toppling over. So the urban tree does die "young", but is the goal to keep trees alive as long as possible? If it is, then there are lots of things that can be done to slow their growth and prolong their lives.…

>but is the goal to keep trees alive as long as possible? For some trees, being 100year old means that the trees are in their late teens/twenties/thirties (source above book). With that in mind, the answer to above question becomes somewhat difficult.

Post by RobotCaleb » Thu, May 09, 2019, 5:48 PM UTC

sevensor wrote: post #57

kaycebasques wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Came here to discuss the same section. It makes sense that urban trees die younger when you think about how heavily the odds are stacked against them: * No network of fellow of trees to share nutrients and information with via their roots, as mentioned above. * Dogs constantly pissing on the trunk. * Smog. * Planted in a small patch of dirt, surrounded by concrete. The dirt itself is usually extremely compacted so no…

Not to mention people constantly ramming vehicles into them. There's not a tree in my town that doesn't have a big scar on the trunk at bumper level.

Post by framebit » Thu, May 09, 2019, 5:54 PM UTC

arjunbanker wrote: post #55

are there any dense urban areas designed to coexist with healthy forests?